If You Haven't Visited Iran or Talked With Iranians, Should You Be Blogging Iran?

If You Haven't Visited Iran or Talked With Iranians, Should You Be Blogging Iran?

    Reese Ehrlich, author of The Iran Agenda: the Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis, has written an incisive article on Iran and how progressives and leftist have reacted to the unfolding events.

He contends, "As far as I can tell none of these leftist critics have actually visited Iran, at least not to report on the recent uprisings. Of course, one can have an opinion about a country without first-hand experience there. But in the case of recent events in Iran, it helps to have met people. It helps a lot."

He discusses the idea that the CIA would be involved he argues most of the articles he has read charging the CIA with meddling in Iran's affairs have been using analogy and implication to make such a case.

He writes, "Of course, the CIA would like to have influence in Iran. But that's a far cry from saying it does have influence. By proclaiming the omnipotence of U.S. power, the leftist critics ironically join hands with Ahmadinejad and the reactionary clerics who blame all unrest on the British and U.S."

The article closes with this, "This is no academic debate or simply fodder for bored bloggers. Real lives are at stake. A repressive government has killed at least 17 Iranians and injured hundreds. The mass movement may not be strong enough to topple the system today but is sowing the seeds for future struggles."

What Reese Ehrlich has written seems to be very similar to what Rob Kall was getting at with his poll. Kall set up a dichotomy that made it seem like those who argue that the CIA is involved may actually be doing more harm than good for the people participating in the uprising in Iran.

I read Ehrlich's article and think about how I have reacted. I have argued by analogy and implication without having been in Iran, without having spoken to a single Iranian.

Those connected to Iran who I have heard from have been Reza Aslan, Hooman Majd, Trita Parsi, and Abbas Sadeghian. Neither has suggested publicly that the U.S. is meddling in the affairs of Iran.

I come across the article in the midst of doing my own research on U.S. democracy promotion organizations, the U.S. State Department and USAID, the CIA, the Mossad, Israel, and the U.S.'s support for Iranian dissident groups and exiles here in America and in the Middle East.

I find myself compelled to now keep what I find private because I haven't the authority to argue that the CIA is there. I am pretty sure I will shift to blogging another topic in the world of politics and news that won't result in the spreading of rumor and unprovable assertions.

Also, I now wonder what good it does to the Iranian people to suggest that U.S.-sponsored organizations are there.

What is the proper response if this the case? Do the Iranian people worry about the CIA and quit feeding into the goals and objectives of the U.S. and just let the brutal regime keep them suppressed by martial law? Or do they continue to rise up and demand an expansion of freedom and democracy in Iran, a shift from the authoritarian theocracy in Iran?

So, I wonder, if we have no connection to the people of Iran---no prior experience reporting from or living in Iran---should we just wait to form conclusions and opinions until those who do have connections, who do have the authority to speak raise the prospect of the U.S. being truly involved in what's happening in Iran?

Invite Your Friend(s) to Vote: